Official Special Investigation Into Trump Thread

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Trump has apparently officially demanded that the Justice Department start investigating whether or not Obama was spying on him in 2016.

He's pulled similar stunts before - wiretaps! unmasking! memos! - but this is a little different because he's explicitly framing it as an order, which is going to create a bit of a scuffle between the DOJ and the White House if the DOJ chooses to resist.

In case it needs repeating, this demand is a little stupid. Mueller has about a dozen people working for him. By comparison, the FBI currently has, at the GOP's request, about fifty-seven people trawling over every email involving Hillary Clinton, eighteen months after the election. Mueller's investigation into Trump has, in a little over year, produced two dozen indictments and five or six convictions. The Clinton investigation has produced a bunch of embarrassing emails and zero indictments, prosecutions or convictions. In terms of bang for your buck, Mueller has everyone beat. The "deep state" doesn't explain the discrepancy, because the people in charge of the DOJ and the FBI right now are all Trump appointees and registered Republicans.

bastardofmelbourne:
Trump has apparently officially demanded that the Justice Department start investigating whether or not Obama was spying on him in 2016.

He's pulled similar stunts before - wiretaps! unmasking! memos! - but this is a little different because he's explicitly framing it as an order, which is going to create a bit of a scuffle between the DOJ and the White House if the DOJ chooses to resist.

In case it needs repeating, this demand is a little stupid. Mueller has about a dozen people working for him. By comparison, the FBI currently has, at the GOP's request, about fifty-seven people trawling over every email involving Hillary Clinton, eighteen months after the election. Mueller's investigation into Trump has, in a little over year, produced two dozen indictments and five or six convictions. The Clinton investigation has produced a bunch of embarrassing emails and zero indictments, prosecutions or convictions. In terms of bang for your buck, Mueller has everyone beat. The "deep state" doesn't explain the discrepancy, because the people in charge of the DOJ and the FBI right now are all Trump appointees and registered Republicans.

They can investigate anything though, that does not mean they will find anything. I see no harm in an investigation in the meantime, it isn't like Trump will shut up either way about it. Trump doesn't understand the difference between a "plant" and an "informant" but he doesn't understand the difference between HPV and HIV so that is to be expected.

bastardofmelbourne:
Trump has apparently officially demanded that the Justice Department start investigating whether or not Obama was spying on him in 2016.

He's pulled similar stunts before - wiretaps! unmasking! memos! - but this is a little different because he's explicitly framing it as an order, which is going to create a bit of a scuffle between the DOJ and the White House if the DOJ chooses to resist.

In case it needs repeating, this demand is a little stupid. Mueller has about a dozen people working for him. By comparison, the FBI currently has, at the GOP's request, about fifty-seven people trawling over every email involving Hillary Clinton, eighteen months after the election. Mueller's investigation into Trump has, in a little over year, produced two dozen indictments and five or six convictions. The Clinton investigation has produced a bunch of embarrassing emails and zero indictments, prosecutions or convictions. In terms of bang for your buck, Mueller has everyone beat. The "deep state" doesn't explain the discrepancy, because the people in charge of the DOJ and the FBI right now are all Trump appointees and registered Republicans.

I expect that they won't find much that is actionable on Hillary Clinton, as her corruption tends to be aboveboard and legal, though no less corrosive in its effect.

Lil devils x:
Trump doesn't understand the difference between a "plant" and an "informant"

He knows. He's just grasping at straws at this point.

Adam Jensen:

Lil devils x:
Trump doesn't understand the difference between a "plant" and an "informant"

He knows. He's just grasping at straws at this point.

I honestly am not sure he does. I really think the guy is that clueless tbh.

bastardofmelbourne:
*snips for being quoted enough*

Here's what I don't get. If people were already worried about his ties to Russia, of course they would be investigating him. Hell, they investigated all of America after 9/11. Patriot Act which turned into the Freedom Act in June 2015. What's the big deal that it happened to him too? Because he was special?

Obama's team had intel that Russia was going to meddle with the election, and like everyone else, they saw the overwhelming vulnerbility that Trump had due to his ties with Russia.

And point of order, the news reached Obama at 2014. Meaning at that time, the more powerful (Republican-Created) Patriot Act was in place. If the investigation of Trump really started at 2014, it would have already been authorized and well on it's way before the Patriot Act was enacted.

So, what's going on? Are we saying the law of the land doesn't apply for Democratic Presidents because the powers were set up by a Republican one? Or that Trump just shouldn't be held to the same laws as the rest of us?

Let's see if this actually posts. Or else I'm just disappearing and seeing if the site is still up within a month.

ObsidianJones:

bastardofmelbourne:
*snips for being quoted enough*

Here's what I don't get. If people were already worried about his ties to Russia, of course they would be investigating him. Hell, they investigated all of America after 9/11. Patriot Act which turned into the Freedom Act in June 2015. What's the big deal that it happened to him too? Because he was special?

Obama's team had intel that Russia was going to meddle with the election, and like everyone else, they saw the overwhelming vulnerbility that Trump had due to his ties with Russia.

And point of order, the news reached Obama at 2014. Meaning at that time, the more powerful (Republican-Created) Patriot Act was in place. If the investigation of Trump really started at 2014, it would have already been authorized and well on it's way before the Patriot Act was enacted.

So, what's going on? Are we saying the law of the land doesn't apply for Democratic Presidents because the powers were set up by a Republican one? Or that Trump just shouldn't be held to the same laws as the rest of us?

Let's see if this actually posts. Or else I'm just disappearing and seeing if the site is still up within a month.

Obama not only used the powers of the patriot act, he expanded them. I had a good number of long rants on his expansion of powers each time it happened. I Think Obama made a terribly bad call due to being more concerned about Trump/GOP screaming that the election was rigged if Obama had made public what they knew on Russia/ Trump ties. I think he was more concerned that Hillary would win and then Trump would start screaming about rigged elections that could also undermine US democracy.

I also think Obama terribly underestimated the impact the Russian Trolls and the alt right would have on the elections with their disinformation campaign. Every single person here that has talked to me about Clinton has repeated some false claim. It happens all the time here, people come in ranting about Clinton and Obama nonstop still and it is always something that isn't even true. I do not talk about this stuff in public, I just listen to what others are saying. The second someone else says something like " what is so bad about socialism" You will get to hear it all.. Socialism is Obama coming for our guns and locking you up with shackles in a fema camp according to voters here in Texas. This is what people truly believe here, and I honestly wonder at this point if they could even handle reality. I am not sure they could.

Lil devils x:
They can investigate anything though, that does not mean they will find anything. I see no harm in an investigation in the meantime, it isn't like Trump will shut up either way about it. Trump doesn't understand the difference between a "plant" and an "informant" but he doesn't understand the difference between HPV and HIV so that is to be expected.

I read somewhere that the real objective at play here is to pressure the FBI to disclose the informant's identity to Trump's legal team, so that they can work backwards to figure out what Mueller does and does not know. And also get a head start on re-characterising him as the coffee boy or whatever.

This is the kind of thing that the FBI would normally be required to do in discovery, but discovery proceedings require an actual trial, and Trump does not want this to go to trial. But he does want to know who the snitch was.

Seanchaidh:
I expect that they won't find much that is actionable on Hillary Clinton, as her corruption tends to be aboveboard and legal, though no less corrosive in its effect.

Well, that's true enough.

ObsidianJones:
So, what's going on? Are we saying the law of the land doesn't apply for Democratic Presidents because the powers were set up by a Republican one? Or that Trump just shouldn't be held to the same laws as the rest of us?

It is entirely and wholly a case of the latter.

bastardofmelbourne:

Lil devils x:
They can investigate anything though, that does not mean they will find anything. I see no harm in an investigation in the meantime, it isn't like Trump will shut up either way about it. Trump doesn't understand the difference between a "plant" and an "informant" but he doesn't understand the difference between HPV and HIV so that is to be expected.

I read somewhere that the real objective at play here is to pressure the FBI to disclose the informant's identity to Trump's legal team, so that they can work backwards to figure out what Mueller does and does not know. And also get a head start on re-characterising him as the coffee boy or whatever.

This is the kind of thing that the FBI would normally be required to do in discovery, but discovery proceedings require an actual trial, and Trump does not want this to go to trial. But he does want to know who the snitch was.

Seanchaidh:
I expect that they won't find much that is actionable on Hillary Clinton, as her corruption tends to be aboveboard and legal, though no less corrosive in its effect.

Well, that's true enough.

ObsidianJones:
So, what's going on? Are we saying the law of the land doesn't apply for Democratic Presidents because the powers were set up by a Republican one? Or that Trump just shouldn't be held to the same laws as the rest of us?

It is entirely and wholly a case of the latter.

That figures of course since Nunes has not been able to grab whatever information he could get his grubby hands on and run off to tell Trump in the middle of the night anymore since Mueller does not let much leak out. That has been Nunes job all along and why he is so persistent to find out whatever he can by any means necessary. Nunes has been trying to pressure the DOJ to turn it over for quite some time now so he can run and tell Trump like he did with everything else he touched.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-met-source-trump-monitoring-claim-white-house-n738906
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-nunes-subpoena-justice-department-20180509-story.html

Lil devils x:
Obama not only used the powers of the patriot act, he expanded them. I had a good number of long rants on his expansion of powers each time it happened. I Think Obama made a terribly bad call due to being more concerned about Trump/GOP screaming that the election was rigged if Obama had made public what they knew on Russia/ Trump ties. I think he was more concerned that Hillary would win and then Trump would start screaming about rigged elections that could also undermine US democracy.

I also think Obama terribly underestimated the impact the Russian Trolls and the alt right would have on the elections with their disinformation campaign. Every single person here that has talked to me about Clinton has repeated some false claim. It happens all the time here, people come in ranting about Clinton and Obama nonstop still and it is always something that isn't even true. I do not talk about this stuff in public, I just listen to what others are saying. The second someone else says something like " what is so bad about socialism" You will get to hear it all.. Socialism is Obama coming for our guns and locking you up with shackles in a fema camp according to voters here in Texas. This is what people truly believe here, and I honestly wonder at this point if they could even handle reality. I am not sure they could.

It posted. Cool.

I honestly don't care if Obama expanded on the actions and abilities of the act. My brother and I got letters gently detailing what would happen to us if we were caught violating the Patriot Act. My mom and dad didn't. Neither did anyone I know.

Difference between us? My brother and I have traditionally Muslim names, even though we were raised Christian.

Governments do dirt to continue to govern. I disagree with being spied on because I haven't do anything wrong, but I know they feel like they won't know that unless they spy on me... continually.

But I don't think Obama underestimated. I think he did exactly the best thing he could. And at this case, it was nothing.

The Cult of the Orange started in way stronger than people realized it would. 2012, he was a mild joke. 2016 came along, and people were already rabid. And Trump knew that and couldn't keep his big mouth shut.

"Remember, we are competing in a rigged election. They even want to try and rig the election at the polling booths, where so many cities are corrupt and voter fraud is all too common."

He got ahead of it and put everyone else offbalance. Potentially giving away how the Obama administration new about Russian interference could have possibly cut off their information pipeline, not to mention end some lives. There was no good move because the cult was already set. Even when the truth of how the Trump Administration works to take powers away from the people and put it in the hand of corporations, the cult only thinks it is stronger for it.

What possible manner could have Obama presented the information to get through such zealotry?

ObsidianJones:

Lil devils x:
Obama not only used the powers of the patriot act, he expanded them. I had a good number of long rants on his expansion of powers each time it happened. I Think Obama made a terribly bad call due to being more concerned about Trump/GOP screaming that the election was rigged if Obama had made public what they knew on Russia/ Trump ties. I think he was more concerned that Hillary would win and then Trump would start screaming about rigged elections that could also undermine US democracy.

I also think Obama terribly underestimated the impact the Russian Trolls and the alt right would have on the elections with their disinformation campaign. Every single person here that has talked to me about Clinton has repeated some false claim. It happens all the time here, people come in ranting about Clinton and Obama nonstop still and it is always something that isn't even true. I do not talk about this stuff in public, I just listen to what others are saying. The second someone else says something like " what is so bad about socialism" You will get to hear it all.. Socialism is Obama coming for our guns and locking you up with shackles in a fema camp according to voters here in Texas. This is what people truly believe here, and I honestly wonder at this point if they could even handle reality. I am not sure they could.

It posted. Cool.

I honestly don't care if Obama expanded on the actions and abilities of the act. My brother and I got letters gently detailing what would happen to us if we were caught violating the Patriot Act. My mom and dad didn't. Neither did anyone I know.

Difference between us? My brother and I have traditionally Muslim names, even though we were raised Christian.

Governments do dirt to continue to govern. I disagree with being spied on because I haven't do anything wrong, but I know they feel like they won't know that unless they spy on me... continually.

But I don't think Obama underestimated. I think he did exactly the best thing he could. And at this case, it was nothing.

The Cult of the Orange started in way stronger than people realized it would. 2012, he was a mild joke. 2016 came along, and people were already rabid. And Trump knew that and couldn't keep his big mouth shut.

"Remember, we are competing in a rigged election. They even want to try and rig the election at the polling booths, where so many cities are corrupt and voter fraud is all too common."

He got ahead of it and put everyone else offbalance. Potentially giving away how the Obama administration new about Russian interference could have possibly cut off their information pipeline, not to mention end some lives. There was no good move because the cult was already set. Even when the truth of how the Trump Administration works to take powers away from the people and put it in the hand of corporations, the cult only thinks it is stronger for it.

What possible manner could have Obama presented the information to get through such zealotry?

They could have not kept it so under wraps. Numerous agencies were completely aware of this and they kept a lid on it. I posted articles on it here but not much was even being said about it in the media, like at all. I posted on the whole Manafort Ukraine, Russian BS, The whole Flynn thing and the government did not say a word about it until after he was elected. They could have very well made it known this was happening and put out an official warning on it. they could have done much of what they chose to do after the fact at the time they found out about it instead of allowing it to get out of hand. They chose to allow it to get out of hand. They did not need to wait until after the election to act on anything. The truth is they were arrogant and thought Clinton was going to win. They failed to act due to arrogance, thinking that people would not be stupid enough to believe the nonsense, and they were terribly wrong. They were given plenty of time to act, had ample resources to do so and balked instead. They allowed foreign governments to interfere with US elections and allowed US national security to be compromised and yes, they should have to answer for choosing to do so.

They did not see a serious threat to US democracy as a threat due to their arrogance, and they should he held accountable for failing to act. As far as I am concerned, I see this as no different to seeing that someone was attacking the US and allowing them to continue to do so. It isn't like it was the first time they had to combat disinformation, the Russians have been doing that nonsense forever. This time the US dropped the ball however.

Lil devils x:
They could have not kept it so under wraps. Numerous agencies were completely aware of this and they kept a lid on it. I posted articles on it here but not much was even being said about it in the media, like at all. I posted on the whole Manafort Ukraine, Russian BS, The whole Flynn thing and the government did not say a word about it until after he was elected. They could have very well made it known this was happening and put out an official warning on it. they could have done much of what they chose to do after the fact at the time they found out about it instead of allowing it to get out of hand. They chose to allow it to get out of hand. They did not need to wait until after the election to act on anything. The truth is they were arrogant and thought Clinton was going to win. They failed to act due to arrogance, thinking that people would not be stupid enough to believe the nonsense, and they were terribly wrong. They were given plenty of time to act, had ample resources to do so and balked instead. They allowed foreign governments to interfere with US elections and allowed US national security to be compromised and yes, they should have to answer for choosing to do so.

I agree to arrogance. But I do not deny that it's an impossible situation.

The point is, they were used to dealing with intelligent politicians. Not what Trump is. A person who was born of spin. Any logical person now has put together his Russian Hacker claims and calling for them to look at Hillary. Hell, any logical person back then saw it. And thought it weird how he talked about a rigged election but called for dirt on the other side. Trump couldn't stop incriminating himself. And then stepping in front of the troubles by claiming it was rigged first.

Any move would have been casting doubt over the Obama administration. Even though Trump begged publicly for Russian help, there has never been a situation like this. And those already upset with Obama and who disliked how Hillary brute-forced herself as the candidate where millions of votes for democratic votes disappeared.

How would it have actually looked? Hell, after the dust cloud of the Trump election started to pass, only then did even New York City admit that they purged hundreds of thousands of votes. While disenfranchised voters were still reeling from having their voice stricken from them by a government that seemed to really want to put Hillary in office... Hillary's old boss was going to come in and go "Hey, that shit sucks... but listen to us! Russians are trying to affect the vote by helping Trump! You gotta believe me!!!"?

Hillary and those democrats played a bad hand. An all or nothing hand. Anything else added to that would have sunk the democratic party.

ObsidianJones:

Lil devils x:
They could have not kept it so under wraps. Numerous agencies were completely aware of this and they kept a lid on it. I posted articles on it here but not much was even being said about it in the media, like at all. I posted on the whole Manafort Ukraine, Russian BS, The whole Flynn thing and the government did not say a word about it until after he was elected. They could have very well made it known this was happening and put out an official warning on it. they could have done much of what they chose to do after the fact at the time they found out about it instead of allowing it to get out of hand. They chose to allow it to get out of hand. They did not need to wait until after the election to act on anything. The truth is they were arrogant and thought Clinton was going to win. They failed to act due to arrogance, thinking that people would not be stupid enough to believe the nonsense, and they were terribly wrong. They were given plenty of time to act, had ample resources to do so and balked instead. They allowed foreign governments to interfere with US elections and allowed US national security to be compromised and yes, they should have to answer for choosing to do so.

I agree to arrogance. But I do not deny that it's an impossible situation.

The point is, they were used to dealing with intelligent politicians. Not what Trump is. A person who was born of spin. Any logical person now has put together his Russian Hacker claims and calling for them to look at Hillary. Hell, any logical person back then saw it. And thought it weird how he talked about a rigged election but called for dirt on the other side. Trump couldn't stop incriminating himself. And then stepping in front of the troubles by claiming it was rigged first.

Any move would have been casting doubt over the Obama administration. Even though Trump begged publicly for Russian help, there has never been a situation like this. And those already upset with Obama and who disliked how Hillary brute-forced herself as the candidate where millions of votes for democratic votes disappeared.

How would it have actually looked? Hell, after the dust cloud of the Trump election started to pass, only then did even New York City admit that they purged hundreds of thousands of votes. While disenfranchised voters were still reeling from having their voice stricken from them by a government that seemed to really want to put Hillary in office... Hillary's old boss was going to come in and go "Hey, that shit sucks... but listen to us! Russians are trying to affect the vote by helping Trump! You gotta believe me!!!"?

Hillary and those democrats played a bad hand. An all or nothing hand. Anything else added to that would have sunk the democratic party.

Obama would not have been the one to come out and say anything, the intelligence agencies ( most of whom were actually republicans anyhow) would have been the messengers as to what was taking place, the same as they managed to do after the election, they just should have done it before so people actually understood what was happening. Trump was going to run his mouth regardless, they should have let him and then continued with their investigation. What they did by doing nothing was empower him to be able to inflict real damage and undermine National Security at the highest level. Failure to act during the Obama administration was negligent allowing the US national security to be compromised at the highest levels. Regardless of people's opinions on him acting, not acting was failing to perform his duty to protect the US and he should have considered that his primary responsibility as President.

Lil devils x:
Obama would not have been the one to come out and say anything, the intelligence agencies ( most of whom were actually republicans anyhow) would have been the messengers as to what was taking place, the same as they managed to do after the election, they just should have done it before so people actually understood what was happening. Trump was going to run his mouth regardless, they should have let him and then continued with their investigation. What they did by doing nothing was empower him to be able to inflict real damage and undermine National Security at the highest level. Failure to act during the Obama administration was negligent allowing the US national security to be compromised at the highest levels. Regardless of people's opinions on him acting, not acting was failing to perform his duty to protect the US and he should have considered that his primary responsibility as President.

The problem is you're thinking logically while dealing with illogical people.

We're talking about the same people who blamed the spill of 2009 on him. Called it Obama's spill. They blamed the war in Iraq on him, called it Obama's war.

Republicans won seats by saying "OBAMA!" and people recoiling. People called Obama weak when he didn't want to war monger, but then called him bloodthirsty when he wanted to act in Syria.

If any member of his administration said something, they would have instantly tied it to Obama.

And furthermore, we're dealing with... maybe 50% of the information currently. We still don't know how deep it goes. We literally got direct money ties, audience promises, and the like due to Stormy Daniels and all of that business within the last few months. The Obama administration knew of links. The audience promises happened after the election.

I don't think Obama is a saint. There are things I really disagree with him with. And he has culpability. But we need to logically understand what happened when, who knew what and how they acted with it. We have little to real concrete information of what he knew, other than vague threats and talk about certain organizations have been penetrated.

Here's a real life example of what Obama had to juggle. It is proven by the FBI that knows that the White Supremacy Movement has infiltrated Law Enforcement. So, what's the next step?

Do we know how many members are in Law Enforcement now? How does the government police the policers with every stop, ticket, and aggressive act? We're talking about Millions of interactions per day. Not to mention police believe they can only live behind the blue wall of silence. But those who really did penetrate the force are out there now and probably influencing other officers as I type this out here.

Ok, we have a vague but proven threat without any idea of the magnitude of the situation, the areas that are affected, who to trust within the organization, nor the millions of able bodies needed to train and replace the whole national police organization while we sort out what's what... Good, now let's solve it!

I don't disagree with you that things could have been handled better. But I do see when a situation doesn't have a right answer.

Obama (or rightly his administration) could have done something. Hell, a part of me believes he should have. But the logical part of me sees that Trump would have spun it so hard that it would have guaranteed the Trump election due to already distrustful Democratic population and a rabid Trump base who hated Obama to begin with. There was no lemonade to be made here.

ObsidianJones:

Lil devils x:
Obama would not have been the one to come out and say anything, the intelligence agencies ( most of whom were actually republicans anyhow) would have been the messengers as to what was taking place, the same as they managed to do after the election, they just should have done it before so people actually understood what was happening. Trump was going to run his mouth regardless, they should have let him and then continued with their investigation. What they did by doing nothing was empower him to be able to inflict real damage and undermine National Security at the highest level. Failure to act during the Obama administration was negligent allowing the US national security to be compromised at the highest levels. Regardless of people's opinions on him acting, not acting was failing to perform his duty to protect the US and he should have considered that his primary responsibility as President.

The problem is you're thinking logically while dealing with illogical people.

We're talking about the same people who blamed the spill of 2009 on him. Called it Obama's spill. They blamed the war in Iraq on him, called it Obama's war.

Republicans won seats by saying "OBAMA!" and people recoiling. People called Obama weak when he didn't want to war monger, but then called him bloodthirsty when he wanted to act in Syria.

If any member of his administration said something, they would have instantly tied it to Obama.

And furthermore, we're dealing with... maybe 50% of the information currently. We still don't know how deep it goes. We literally got direct money ties, audience promises, and the like due to Stormy Daniels and all of that business within the last few months. The Obama administration knew of links. The audience promises happened after the election.

I don't think Obama is a saint. There are things I really disagree with him with. And he has culpability. But we need to logically understand what happened when, who knew what and how they acted with it. We have little to real concrete information of what he knew, other than vague threats and talk about certain organizations have been penetrated.

Here's a real life example of what Obama had to juggle. It is proven by the FBI that knows that the White Supremacy Movement has infiltrated Law Enforcement. So, what's the next step?

Do we know how many members are in Law Enforcement now? How does the government police the policers with every stop, ticket, and aggressive act? We're talking about Millions of interactions per day. Not to mention police believe they can only live behind the blue wall of silence. But those who really did penetrate the force are out there now and probably influencing other officers as I type this out here.

Ok, we have a vague but proven threat without any idea of the magnitude of the situation, the areas that are affected, who to trust within the organization, nor the millions of able bodies needed to train and replace the whole national police organization while we sort out what's what... Good, now let's solve it!

I don't disagree with you that things could have been handled better. But I do see when a situation doesn't have a right answer.

Obama (or rightly his administration) could have done something. Hell, a part of me believes he should have. But the logical part of me sees that Trump would have spun it so hard that it would have guaranteed the Trump election due to already distrustful Democratic population and a rabid Trump base who hated Obama to begin with. There was no lemonade to be made here.

The die hards would blame Obama regardless. Those in the middle that voted for Trump but really did not know what they were getting into would have at least had a chance to understand the situation of what was happening. They deserved to have that information before making up their minds.

It doesn't matter what the die hards scream, Obama is STILL more popular than Trump, even among the swing voters.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-americans-like-obama-so-much-better-than-trump/

Obama won over many nay sayers and McCain voters, not just his primary supporters. Trump has been losing them rather than gaining them. I am not saying that there would not have been blowback no matter what he decided to do, but being told there was a national security threat to US elections and letting it continue and doing nothing should have never been an option.

You don't know that McConnell prevented Obama from telling people about Russian interference? His hands were tied.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference

The good news is that these people will go down in history the same way Benedict Arnold did.

Adam Jensen:
You don't know that McConnell prevented Obama from telling people about Russian interference? His hands were tied.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference

The good news is that these people will go down in history the same way Benedict Arnold did.

As a namesake for a tasty way to have eggs? At least, according to some people. Don't like hollondaise sauce myself.

Adam Jensen:
You don't know that McConnell prevented Obama from telling people about Russian interference? His hands were tied.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference

The good news is that these people will go down in history the same way Benedict Arnold did.

He didn't have to go through Congress. He very well could have gone straight to the intelligence agencies.

A recent poll by a new group called Navigator Research is showing that 59% of Americans simply don't know that Mueller's investigation has uncovered actual crimes.

To recap, Mueller has has absolutely uncovered evidence of actual crimes. He's indicted fourteen people and three companies and obtained five guilty pleas - three of which were from people who worked directly for Trump during his 2016 campaign. In case anyone doesn't know what "guilty" means, it's lawyer-speak for "committed a crime."

Lil devils x:

Adam Jensen:
You don't know that McConnell prevented Obama from telling people about Russian interference? His hands were tied.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference

The good news is that these people will go down in history the same way Benedict Arnold did.

He didn't have to go through Congress. He very well could have gone straight to the intelligence agencies.

I know you don't like what Obama did... but he was trying to make the info as palatable to the American people as it is. For the same reasons I referenced before. Hillary and now this during an election year. Only both sides presenting this information in unison would have opened the ears of the American Public. Anything short of it would have looked like political grandstanding and a half hearted effort to cast doubt on Trump.

bastardofmelbourne:
A recent poll by a new group called Navigator Research is showing that 59% of Americans simply don't know that Mueller's investigation has uncovered actual crimes.

To recap, Mueller has has absolutely uncovered evidence of actual crimes. He's indicted fourteen people and three companies and obtained five guilty pleas - three of which were from people who worked directly for Trump during his 2016 campaign. In case anyone doesn't know what "guilty" means, it's lawyer-speak for "committed a crime."

They don't know because they don't care. And yet centrist Democrats are going to run on this stupid bullshit anyway instead of having a substantive policy platform.

Lil devils x:
He didn't have to go through Congress. He very well could have gone straight to the intelligence agencies.

Intel agencies went to him with this info.

Seanchaidh:
They don't know because they don't care.

That's...a bit circular. How can they care or not care about stuff that they aren't aware of? Wouldn't you have to be made aware of a thing in order to decide whether or not you care about it?

Seanchaidh:
And yet centrist Democrats are going to run on this stupid bullshit anyway instead of having a substantive policy platform.

They aren't, actually. While there's a chunk of Democrats in Congress pushing for impeachment, the party leaders are avoiding the topic. This is presumably for strategic reasons; if you make the 2018 elections a referendum on impeaching Trump, you'll drive up Republican voter turnout.

Instead, they're trying to make the party's policies more appealing to Berniecrats. Just a couple days ago they promised to raise teacher's wages nationwide with $100 billion in federal funding, paid for by rolling back some of Trump's tax cuts on the top 1% of income earners. That's a Bernie Sanders policy coming out of Chuck Schumer's mouth.

But they're having difficulty turning the public's attention back to policy - ironically, because the Russia scandal takes up all the air in the room. You ask me, the fault isn't with the Democrats; it's with the US cable news cycle, which somehow manages to devote an incredible amount of time to the Trump/Russia scandal while simultaneously explaining very little about it other than that it's there and still happening.

I mean, all the talk about collusion is a perfect example. "Collusion" is meaningless from a legal perspective. It doesn't describe an actual criminal offence. But the media keeps going "did collusion happen???" when a) it's clear as day that it totally did and b) the real question is whether the collusion was illegal, which is a genuinely difficult question relating to boring old campaign finance law. But cable news doesn't have the fucking balls to actually tackle a difficult question honestly, so instead they turn it into a long-running drama about did-he-or-didn't-he. Even Trump is super eager to keep mentioning collusion - albeit to repeatedly deny that it occurred - because he's probably figured out that no-one really wants to talk about what collusion is supposed to be, because it's a complex question and US cable news responds to complex questions like a vampire being dragged out into the sun. And if it can't be defined, he can't be indicted for it.

So long as Trump can keep the discussion focused on whether or not he "colluded" and not on what he actually did, he keeps everyone distracted from the uncomfortable truth about his presidency - that a lot of the people he had working on his campaign turned out to be crooks, that a lot of the people in his administration are turning out to be crooks, that he himself is astonishingly crooked, and that it's very likely that he only won the election because Putin acted on the raging hate-boner he has for Hillary Clinton and succeeded beyond his wildest ejaculations expectations.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
They don't know because they don't care.

That's...a bit circular. How can they care or not care about stuff that they aren't aware of? Wouldn't you have to be made aware of a thing in order to decide whether or not you care about it?

What people care about tends to guide where they pay attention. The mainstream media is constantly talking about the Mueller investigation. Every arrest or conviction is treated with breathless anticipation and each new detail is greeted by exhilarated climax. If people don't know, it's because they don't care to watch what a bunch of oligarchs consider to be "the news".

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
And yet centrist Democrats are going to run on this stupid bullshit anyway instead of having a substantive policy platform.

They aren't, actually. While there's a chunk of Democrats in Congress pushing for impeachment, the party leaders are avoiding the topic. This is presumably for strategic reasons; if you make the 2018 elections a referendum on impeaching Trump, you'll drive up Republican voter turnout.

Instead, they're trying to make the party's policies more appealing to Berniecrats. Just a couple days ago they promised to raise teacher's wages nationwide with $100 billion in federal funding, paid for by rolling back some of Trump's tax cuts on the top 1% of income earners. That's a Bernie Sanders policy coming out of Chuck Schumer's mouth.

Band-aid on a brain trauma. They (the party itself, not just the candidates) keep deliberately sabotaging progressive candidates in primaries and they stay silent on various issues. Virtually none of them have said word one about the massacres in Gaza, for example. They come up with some mealy-mouthed bullshit about "access to healthcare" but avoid endorsing Medicare for All. Their approach to campaign finance has been basically to ignore the issue.

bastardofmelbourne:
But they're having difficulty turning the public's attention back to policy - ironically, because the Russia scandal takes up all the air in the room. You ask me, the fault isn't with the Democrats; it's with the US cable news cycle, which somehow manages to devote an incredible amount of time to the Trump/Russia scandal while simultaneously explaining very little about it other than that it's there and still happening.

I mean, all the talk about collusion is a perfect example. "Collusion" is meaningless from a legal perspective. It doesn't describe an actual criminal offence. But the media keeps going "did collusion happen???" when a) it's clear as day that it totally did and b) the real question is whether the collusion was illegal, which is a genuinely difficult question relating to boring old campaign finance law. But cable news doesn't have the fucking balls to actually tackle a difficult question honestly, so instead they turn it into a long-running drama about did-he-or-didn't-he. Even Trump is super eager to keep mentioning collusion - albeit to repeatedly deny that it occurred - because he's probably figured out that no-one really wants to talk about what collusion is supposed to be, because it's a complex question and US cable news responds to complex questions like a vampire being dragged out into the sun. And if it can't be defined, he can't be indicted for it.

So long as Trump can keep the discussion focused on whether or not he "colluded" and not on what he actually did, he keeps everyone distracted from the uncomfortable truth about his presidency - that a lot of the people he had working on his campaign turned out to be crooks, that a lot of the people in his administration are turning out to be crooks, that he himself is astonishingly crooked, and that it's very likely that he only won the election because Putin acted on the raging hate-boner he has for Hillary Clinton and succeeded beyond his wildest ejaculations expectations.

The impact of Russia on the election is vastly overstated. Most of the stuff put out by Russians went public only after the election, and it was dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of bullshit pouring out of both campaigns, and the funding from other sources. To call this meddling in an election is to insult what the United States routinely does in other countries through things like Voice of America (or, indeed, CNN). Russia didn't prevent Sec. Clinton from going to Wisconsin, nor did it advocate for NAFTA and TPP, inflate Hillary's opinion poll numbers or deflate her ability to inspire support. That's pretty much all on her (aside from the overconfident polling, perhaps).

Seanchaidh:
The impact of Russia on the election is vastly overstated. Most of the stuff put out by Russians went public only after the election, and it was dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of bullshit pouring out of both campaigns, and the funding from other sources. To call this meddling in an election is to insult what the United States routinely does in other countries through things like Voice of America (or, indeed, CNN). Russia didn't prevent Sec. Clinton from going to Wisconsin, nor did it advocate for NAFTA and TPP, inflate Hillary's opinion poll numbers or deflate her ability to inspire support. That's pretty much all on her (aside from the overconfident polling, perhaps).

Russia doing what they did, we should have a beef with Russia. Sanctions, that whole mess.

The problem is how much Trump knew and let happened or actively requested (like his stupid call for Russian Hackers back in 2016).

?The President, Vice President and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.?

? Article II, section 4, U.S. Constitution

?Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office ? but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.?

? Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution

First thing is first.

Stolen emails, which have very high (intellectual) value given that people will pay hundreds of thousands for dirt on political opponents. That brings us to Possession of Stolen Property.

The offense of property possession of stolen property is made up of two parts. First, a person charged with this offense must have property that was (or was partly) gained by theft, fraud, or any other crime. Second, the person must have known that the property was stolen or gained by fraud. Also, if the prosecutor can show that it was obvious that a reasonable person would have thought the property was stolen and the accused failed to investigate whether it was stolen or not, he or she can be found guilty of possession of stolen property.

A person who is innocently is possession of stolen goods will not be guilty of a crime, but generally, the goods will be returned to the owner.

We'll get more into this later.

The Obstruction of Justice is obvious, trying to turn all abilities to find out what Russia did and if they did it for Trump with his previous consent.

Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense of interfering with the (1) administration or process of law, (2) withholding material information or giving false testimony, or (3) harming or intimidating a juror, witness, or officer of law.

The crime of obstruction of justice generally includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials. It is considered as a misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. However, prosecutors and attorneys commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.

Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a non-suspect person has lied to the investigating officers. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters or destroys physical evidence, even if s/he was under no compulsion to produce such evidence, at any time. Obstruction of justice is a broad concept that extends to any effort to prevent the execution of lawful process or the administration of justice in either a criminal or civil matter. Obstructive conduct also includes the intimidation of potential witnesses or retaliation against actual witnesses, the preparation of false testimony or other evidence, or the interference with jurors or other court personnel. The purpose of criminal obstruction statutes is to protect the integrity of legal proceedings and, at the same time, protect those individuals who participate in such proceedings.

If you looked at the Spoiler, section 1505 is very interesting. It would speak as to why Trump wanted to be sure that Comey would say that Trump wasn't under any investigation before Trump fired him. He in fact stated that he was "thinking about firing Comey over this Russia thing"

Asked about Trump's tweet on ABC's "The View" later Wednesday, Comey said he didn't know why he was fired. But he said he took Trump "at his word" when he explained to Holt that Russia was the motivating factor.

Now, we get to Treason. This, sadly, is not up to us to decide. While we as a people might feel like Russia has been increasingly becoming antagonistic to us, we can't know if America already declared the country and Enemy Power.

But if it were the case that Russia was an enemy power, this is where their efforts really mean something. Our intelligence agencies already concluded that Putin ordered the Election Tampering of 2016. Now, even though this has come to light, Trump has been very, VERY forgiving to Russia. Trump still blocks imposed sanctions to Russia.

Well, if they weren't an enemy power now, with all the threatening, I can't see how they wouldn't be... unless Trump actively tries to prevent them from being considered so. Like blocking sanctions and being the only person on earth that Trump treats with respect. Trump can't even get his own wife's name right.

Here's where later comes into play. It looks like Aid and Easement to a Hostile Power to a lot of us.

So, in the end, the efforts of Russia are meaningless... up until we get to the President's involvement. I know the US has done similar things to other countries. That's apart of the disgusting game that keeps our society moving. But Domestic agents either aiding and/or concealing a foreign power's intentions of destabilizing their home nation is a crime. A major one. One that a lot of Trump's "Best people" are flipping on and pleading guilty to lesser crimes because they know the dirt they've done.

Hillary was a bad candidate. She lost and lost bad. That's not the issue. If Bill Clinton, Bush, or Obama won while doing a criminal act, we shouldn't focus on the fact that America voted for these Presidents... we should be focusing on the criminal acts. That's what we're doing now. Trump somehow won. Fault lies with the American people for either being duped or not voting correctly.

That does not negate the criminality that happened of Russia's involvement. And to be clear, if Hillary won? Yes, I still think we should have this investigation because a.) such vulnerabilities should be brought to light and b.) even if he lost, if Trump had something to do with it, it would still have at least the Possession of Stolen Property crime if he indeed received info from the hacked DNC computers.

There are elements of a Crime here. If we consider ourselves a just and lawful society, we see it through to make sure Justice (if any needed) is meted out.

Seanchaidh:
The impact of Russia on the election is vastly overstated. Most of the stuff put out by Russians went public only after the election, and it was dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of bullshit pouring out of both campaigns, and the funding from other sources. To call this meddling in an election is to insult what the United States routinely does in other countries through things like Voice of America (or, indeed, CNN). Russia didn't prevent Sec. Clinton from going to Wisconsin, nor did it advocate for NAFTA and TPP, inflate Hillary's opinion poll numbers or deflate her ability to inspire support. That's pretty much all on her (aside from the overconfident polling, perhaps).

I disagree. The impact was far more reaching than people initially realized. It was not the Russian ads that were the most effective, it was the disinformation campaign by individuals. They reached far more people through individuals sharing on numerous social media platforms than the initial ads themselves. Russian Trolls were sharing this crap on twitter, Facebook, news sites, forums all over the place and were able to reach many more people than ads ever would. When you hear the same nonsense The troll were promoting coming out of everyone you talk to locally, it shows it made a very real impact. You should keep in mind, this is just was reported, not including many of the individual other numerous actions taking place on these platforms and others:

Under pressure from legislators, Facebook said that Russian content on its platform reached as many as 126 million Americans. Twitter found 37,000 Russian accounts whose tweets were seen 300 million times, and Google disclosed that Russian trolls posted 1,100 videos on a number of different Youtube channels.

https://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/americas/2018/01/facebook-russian-trolls-era-information-warfare-180131135425603.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/us/politics/russian-operatives-facebook-twitter.html

I think you are terribly underestimating how impactful it really was. You had people walking around repeating what they had read and spreading the nonsense much further than just those users who were impacted online. Those same people who were impacted online then went on to spread the BS further to everyone they knew and socialized with. Between the Russians and infowars spreading the same disinformation, they were able to convince a great number of people what they were reading was in fact real rather than entirely fabricated. People on this site kept posting links to the same nonsense that had already been shown to be false. It was being spread in small towns all across the US, not just on the internet. These people were talking about this nonsense in Wafflehouse's all across the country.

Adam Jensen:

Lil devils x:
He didn't have to go through Congress. He very well could have gone straight to the intelligence agencies.

Intel agencies went to him with this info.

That is what I am saying, he should have told them to make a press release on it rather than keep it quiet. That did not happen until After he election, when it very well could have happened at the time instead of waiting until the damage was done. He allowed the attack to continue rather than allowing the American people to understand what was happening to them at the time. If they had the intelligence agencies put out an official statement, it would have counteracted the mass disinformation Blitz just enough to let people understand what was happening.

There is a huge difference between democrats and other politicians saying that something is true or not true than the CIA, FBI, DoD, and other US Agencies coming out in Unison stating there was an attack taking place on the US in the form of a disinformation campaign by Russian operatives with the intent on influencing US elections. If that had come from the US intelligence agencies at the time, it would have at least given those who were encountering this a chance to understand what was happening to them. By keeping it under wraps, they were at best "allowing" at worst, "aiding" the Russians in being successful in their campaign.

By having officials remaining silent, they allowed for the attack to be carried out and ensured it's success. I see that as neglecting their duty to protect the US. Hell if our government is going to do what they did every time, they are making it extremely easy for any foreign government to take control of the US.

At the time they went to Obama with the information, he should have had them prepare a press release and speak to the public themselves. They did this after, but that was after the damage had already been done rather than attempting to mitigate it.

ObsidianJones:
Russia doing what they did, we should have a beef with Russia. Sanctions, that whole mess.

But propping up Yeltsin was fine.

Seanchaidh:

ObsidianJones:
Russia doing what they did, we should have a beef with Russia. Sanctions, that whole mess.

But propping up Yeltsin was fine.

ObsidianJones:
So, in the end, the efforts of Russia are meaningless... up until we get to the President's involvement. I know the US has done similar things to other countries. That's apart of the disgusting game that keeps our society moving.

Already addressed that.

Again, between nations, sanctions and bad words get thrown around when stuff like this happens. Nothing more can be done.

But if a national is caught aiding a foreign power for malfeasance against his sovereign nation, THAT'S treason. THAT'S a problem.

We established That Russia did it. The appropriate actions, Sanctions, were suggested but not put into place. All thanks to Trump, the national in question.

We established that Russia picked and liked Trump. That they've hacked into our election body, set up propaganda machines, had spies in the country for a decade in attempts to gather secrets, intel and ways to sway the American mindset... and oh, continued to do the same thing five years later.

Now, we have to see how much Trump is involved. The Money Laundering. The Lawyer selling Audience Time with Trump. A lot of things are pointing to a President for Hire.

But did Trump look the other way with previous knowledge and/or engaged with Russia to help this all happen? That's what America should be concerned with, and that's where Donald's troubles lie.

Lil devils x:

Adam Jensen:

Lil devils x:
He didn't have to go through Congress. He very well could have gone straight to the intelligence agencies.

Intel agencies went to him with this info.

That is what I am saying, he should have told them to make a press release on it rather than keep it quiet.

It would have had the same effect. It was something that required bipartisan support.

Adam Jensen:

Lil devils x:

Adam Jensen:

Intel agencies went to him with this info.

That is what I am saying, he should have told them to make a press release on it rather than keep it quiet.

It would have had the same effect. It was something that required bipartisan support.

It had bipartisan support considering the people heading up the FBI, CIA, and DoD are primarily Republicans. Besides they have enough Republicans in the Senate to agree with the Intelligence agencies as it is.

ObsidianJones:
We established That Russia did it. The appropriate actions, Sanctions

Did Russia sanction the United States for its aid to Yeltsin?

Seanchaidh:

ObsidianJones:
We established That Russia did it. The appropriate actions, Sanctions

Did Russia sanction the United States for its aid to Yeltsin?

Which would be up to Russia to decide. In fact, one might say they already did as the result of this election. The spies were sent and this was done for a reason.

You're actively not answering the Donald Trump aspect. Which is the problem we're all facing. If you're making a point that the US deserves to be fucked with, no argument there. Again, this is what nations do to each other, sadly.

But nations. Hell, if you're a national to an enemy nation, you just get handed back. Like the Russian Spies I mentioned before. Trump is a national to this nation. If guilty of these crimes, he conspired with a foreign nation to undermine America. Just like Russia has the rights to punish any of their own nationals who helped Yeltsin get into power along the United States, so do we have the right and frankly the duty to punish Trump.

Lil devils x:
It had bipartisan support considering the people heading up the FBI, CIA, and DoD are primarily Republicans. Besides they have enough Republicans in the Senate to agree with the Intelligence agencies as it is.

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter what the IC says and does when the people already don't trust them. And Republicans would have screamed "DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY" from the top of their lungs. They would have blamed it on Obama. He had no support from the GOP on the issue. And the people, dumb as they are, would have bought it. They bought pretty much every conspiracy theory about Hillary during the election. And if Hillary had managed to win, Republicans would try to impeach her, they'd stonewall her on every turn, they'd demand investigation after investigation and they'd consider her illegitimate.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here